Dispatches from a Reductionist World, II

Leonard Cohen has on occasion informed the world that, though the rocket ships climb through the skies, the holy books are open wide, and the doctors are working day and night, they'll never, never find that cure for love. There exists neither drink, nor drug, for nothing is pure enough to be a cure for love.

I have long suspected that the main reason for this is that there is no demand for a cure for love, and therefore no-one seeks to find one. Ask any doctor or rocket scientist if they've been working day and night trying to find a cure for love. They will tell you, "no".

I mention it as research has been proceeding which raises the spectre, not yet of a cure (although it may count as progress towards that goal) but of for other forms of tinkering with the biochemistry involved. From the BBC:

Couples should not worry when the first flush of passion dims - scientists have identified the hormone changes which cause the switch from lust to cuddles.

A team from the University of Pisa in Italy found the bodily chemistry which makes people sexually attractive to new partners lasts, at most, two years.

When couples move into a "stable relationship" phase, other hormones take over, Chemistry World reports.

But one psychologist warned the hormone shift is wrongly seen as negative.

Dr Petra Boynton, of the British Psychological Society, said there was a danger people might feel they should take hormone supplements to make them feel the initial rush of lust once more...

The scientists found that the lust molecule was replaced by the so-called "cuddle hormone" - oxytocin - in couples who had been together for several years.

I share Dr. Boynton's fears - "I'm concerned that, having identified these hormones, there will be some move to suggest replacements to recreate the early passion." It is likely to happen. Imagine the kind of complication it will add to relationships when cuddle pills are available, the emotional blackmail of "if you loved me you'd take that so you could love me even more", the increasing inability of the rising generation to handle love without drugging themselves into the appropriate state of mind. Imagine the legislative wrangles, the debate over advertising, the massive arguments over morality, the Pope getting lobbied to change his archaic, regressive, anti-love positions after he says it's probably a hideously bad idea and ARE YOU ALL INSANE WHY DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT TO YOURSELVES, the reactionary forces in society getting shouted down for wanting to restrict people's freedom whenever they point out research showing that popping oxytocin eventually degrades your overall ability to relate to other people in a balanced fashion, &c. May sound insane, but progress marches on, you know? There's lots of things in modern society that would have sounded appalling, outlandish or insane thirty years ago but we almost take for granted now; doubtless if we could see our great-grandchildren's future we'd be utterly horrified.

Or maybe I'm being overly pessimistic and paranoid. (When I was 11, my teacher would sometimes snap "pessimist!" at me for being, well, pessimistic. But there's nothing wrong with that! I demand my right to misery!)

Michael Gross, a bio-chemist and science writer who has studied the latest findings, said: "It shows that different hormones are present in the blood when people are acutely in love while there is no evidence of the same hormones in people who have been in a stable relationship for many years.

"In fact the love molecules can disappear as early as 12 months after a relationship has started to be replaced by another chemical glue that keeps couples together."

When people talk of "there being a chemistry between us", they don't usually mean it so literally. But here's the best line of the article:

He added: "To any romantically inclined chemist, it should be deeply satisfying to be able to prove that chemical messengers communicate romantic feeling between humans.

What can you say to that?